PDA

View Full Version : Sending "Your Kids" to Iraq



Muck
08-01-2004, 11:00 PM
Lately we've been hearing a lot of "would you send YOUR kids to fight in Iraq" out of people who oppose the war in Iraq. By asking "would you send yours??", it is supposed to call into question the validity of the US invading and remaining in Iraq.

IMO, this is one the stupidest phrases imaginable and has bothered me for awhile. As if a parent would EVER want to put their child into harm's way. Doesn't that go against every parental instinct you're supposed to have?? Isn't the job of a parent to love and protect their child??

This isn't about whether or not this war is just. I really haven't made my feelings public on the subject (party because I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about it). It's about people trying to prove a point by asking a question that makes ZERO sense.

So when someone asks, "Would you send YOU'RE kid to Iraq??".....I respond, "Would you have sent you're kid to Normandy??"

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 11:06 PM
Lately we've been hearing a lot of "would you send YOUR kids to fight in Iraq" out of people who oppose the war in Iraq. By asking "would you send yours??", it is supposed to call into question the validity of the US invading and remaining in Iraq.

IMO, this is one the stupidest phrases imaginable and has bothered me for awhile. As if a parent would EVER want to put their child into harm's way. Doesn't that go against every parental instinct you're supposed to have?? Isn't the job of a parent to love and protect their child??

This isn't about whether or not this war is just. I really haven't made my feelings public on the subject (party because I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about it). It's about people trying to prove a point by asking a question that makes ZERO sense.

So when someone asks, "Would you send YOU'RE kid to Iraq??".....I respond, "Would you have sent you're kid to Normandy??"

I agree wholeheartedly, the question isn't one that can be answered by any rational human being, but extremist conservatives or extremist liberals aren't exactly rational. So who knows what they'd say.

CirclingWagons
08-01-2004, 11:10 PM
I'm pretty sure no parent would want their kid in a war. But it probably hurts more when your child is put in harm's way because of somebody's personal agenda/vendetta.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 11:12 PM
I'm pretty sure no parent would want their kid in a war. But it probably hurts more when your child is put in harm's way because of somebody's personal agenda/vendetta.

Yeah as a parent you'd want to know that your child's life actually was for a good cause there's no doubt about that. But the question is a silly one.

CirclingWagons
08-01-2004, 11:13 PM
Yeah as a parent you'd want to know that your child's life actually was for a good cause there's no doubt about that. But the question is a silly one.
I agree

Muck
08-01-2004, 11:24 PM
I'm pretty sure no parent would want their kid in a war. But it probably hurts more when your child is put in harm's way because of somebody's personal agenda/vendetta.

There's no question that one would take great pride in having your child serve and defend this great nation. There's no greater sacrifice or gesture. It's only natural that you wish for them to not be in danger.

I agree with what you're saying. And it's true, it's tougher when you're kid's fighting for something you and/or they don't believe in. But the "would you send yours" line is just silly, because NOBODY in their right mind would "send theirs" to ANY war.

BigFinFan
08-01-2004, 11:26 PM
What is democracy?

Its got something to do with young men killing each other.

When it’s my turn, will you want me to go?

For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son!

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 11:26 PM
The question Muck is were they really 'defending' our nation. I know they were sent their by our president but to defend a nation from a non-imminant threat. Is that really defense? Or Attack?

BigFinFan
08-01-2004, 11:27 PM
This war is just and the reasons we are fighting are real! Anyone who does not believe that this war is just is not living in reality.

BigFinFan
08-01-2004, 11:29 PM
The question Muck is were they really 'defending' our nation. I know they were sent their by our president but to defend a nation from a non-imminant threat. Is that really defense? Or Attack?

We have been on the defensive since the early 80's. We stood by and watched too long. The attack was well overdue.

You cannot defend without attacking!

Muck
08-01-2004, 11:33 PM
Again, I just want to say that this thread is not about whether or not the war is just. It's about people using an unfair question to justify their position.

caneproud117
08-01-2004, 11:57 PM
Again, I just want to say that this thread is not about whether or not the war is just. It's about people using an unfair question to justify their position.

Yeah I agree, it's like those bumper stickers that say "Choose Life, Your Mom Did." It's playing on people's emotions to back their views.

ABrownLamp
08-02-2004, 12:36 AM
the point of that message is that anyone can be gung-ho about going to war until it hits home. until YOUR kid has to go to war, it's ok. this is why war should only be out of necessity. if they started up the draft again because they ran out of troops, and you were called upon for duty, you might have a different opinion about the war (not you personally, Muck, You in a general sense.)

Clumpy
08-02-2004, 01:11 AM
I agree AB. A co-worker of mine is a staunch Bush supporter. HOWEVER, she refused to allow her husband to join the Reserves (they definitely need the $$). She said she didn't want him to go to war. She supports the war in Iraq though. :shakeno: It's basically a "free-rider" situation. One benefits from others sacrifices without sacrificing. I told her she was a hypocrite and she agreed with me. This "your family member can serve and I'll be forever grateful" BS makes me so incensed. :mad:

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 02:04 AM
I'd be happy if my son decides to join the military in 20 years. I'd also be scared $hitless. And if, God forbid he died as a result, I wouldn't give a rat$ a$$ if he died defending a hospital full of nuns, or in a training accident in Ft Benning GA. He'd still be dead, and it would still be the worst tragedy I could imagine. There are no noble wars. There are no good wars. There really aren't any justifiable wars. War is the dumbest thing humans do. But unlike the tango, it only takes one to start a war. And as such, those who would preserve our way of life must sometimes sacrifice themselves for those unwilling to make that sacrifice. Given the current situation? If I had to choose having my son die to bring freedom to Iraqi's and stability to the Middle East, or liberating France only to have them pi$$ on us for the following 6 decades...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Heck, if I had to choose between him dying for Iraqi's and dying for some snot nosed pissant American kid too spoiled to defend himself...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Either way in the grand scheme of things HOW my son died would make as much of an impact on the fact OF my son dying as an eye dropper of water would impact Niagarra Falls.

BigFinFan
08-02-2004, 12:01 PM
Very nicely put!

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 12:23 PM
I'd be happy if my son decides to join the military in 20 years. I'd also be scared $hitless. And if, God forbid he died as a result, I wouldn't give a rat$ a$$ if he died defending a hospital full of nuns, or in a training accident in Ft Benning GA. He'd still be dead, and it would still be the worst tragedy I could imagine. There are no noble wars. There are no good wars. There really aren't any justifiable wars. War is the dumbest thing humans do. But unlike the tango, it only takes one to start a war. And as such, those who would preserve our way of life must sometimes sacrifice themselves for those unwilling to make that sacrifice. Given the current situation? If I had to choose having my son die to bring freedom to Iraqi's and stability to the Middle East, or liberating France only to have them pi$$ on us for the following 6 decades...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Heck, if I had to choose between him dying for Iraqi's and dying for some snot nosed pissant American kid too spoiled to defend himself...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Either way in the grand scheme of things HOW my son died would make as much of an impact on the fact OF my son dying as an eye dropper of water would impact Niagarra Falls.
I unlike you, give a damn whether "my" life was worth something and "my childs" life was worth something. I'd be sad either way if this circumstance were to happen, but it would bring a smile to my face from time to time knowing that my son died for a good cause and 'defending' our country from immediate danger. That's the key point, immediate danger. World World II that was a justifiable war, because we were in immediate danger and I would be proud as a father for my son to serve in such an honorable cause.

BigFinFan
08-02-2004, 01:04 PM
Why is OEF/OIF unjustifiable to you?

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 01:10 PM
Why is OEF/OIF unjustifiable to you?

First off, we were in no immediate danger of being attacked by the Iraqis. That's really the main point to my discontent. Secondly, I feel you don't get across that Decomracy is the best form of government by waging war and shoving it on people. Spreading Democracy should be verbal and backed up by the prominance of this country, otherwise we're no better than the Nazis.

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 01:35 PM
I just read that General Tommie Franks, the guy that actually led the armies in Iraq and Afghanistan said that we did not commit enough soldiers to finding Usama bin Ladin (you know him,the guy who helped attack us) and that we still do not have enough soldiers in Afghanistan to do the job there. It's in his book that just came out on Amazon. Tommie Franks Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060731583/qid=1091405622/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-7649035-4715846)

BigFinFan
08-02-2004, 01:46 PM
First off, we were in no immediate danger of being attacked by the Iraqis. That's really the main point to my discontent. Secondly, I feel you don't get across that Decomracy is the best form of government by waging war and shoving it on people. Spreading Democracy should be verbal and backed up by the prominance of this country, otherwise we're no better than the Nazis.

In order to spread Democracy, Sadaam had to be removed from office

DolFan31
08-02-2004, 03:18 PM
Didnt Bush say that the Iraqi's could have any form of government?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. "

Oh, wait. He also said Bin Laden was our #1 target in the War on Terror.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

In contrast:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Section126
08-02-2004, 03:23 PM
"Timmy!!!! Clean up your room or I will send you to Iraq!"

ABrownLamp
08-02-2004, 06:16 PM
I'd be happy if my son decides to join the military in 20 years. I'd also be scared $hitless. And if, God forbid he died as a result, I wouldn't give a rat$ a$$ if he died defending a hospital full of nuns, or in a training accident in Ft Benning GA. He'd still be dead, and it would still be the worst tragedy I could imagine. There are no noble wars. There are no good wars. There really aren't any justifiable wars. War is the dumbest thing humans do. But unlike the tango, it only takes one to start a war. And as such, those who would preserve our way of life must sometimes sacrifice themselves for those unwilling to make that sacrifice. Given the current situation? If I had to choose having my son die to bring freedom to Iraqi's and stability to the Middle East, or liberating France only to have them pi$$ on us for the following 6 decades...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Heck, if I had to choose between him dying for Iraqi's and dying for some snot nosed pissant American kid too spoiled to defend himself...I'd pick the Iraqi's. Either way in the grand scheme of things HOW my son died would make as much of an impact on the fact OF my son dying as an eye dropper of water would impact Niagarra Falls.
But unlike this war which is based on assumptions and possibilities, WWII presented a clear and present danger. In other words it came out of necessity.
It always hurts to lose something. You can say that about anything. But to lose something for no reason, especially the life of your own child is beyond me. I was never in the military, so maybe we have different points of view, but if my child DIED overseas in a war that we didn't need to start which in the end accomplished nothing (Vietnam) I would be a lot less forgiving than you.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 07:17 PM
I unlike you, give a damn whether "my" life was worth something and "my childs" life was worth something. I'd be sad either way if this circumstance were to happen, but it would bring a smile to my face from time to time knowing that my son died for a good cause and 'defending' our country from immediate danger. That's the key point, immediate danger. World World II that was a justifiable war, because we were in immediate danger and I would be proud as a father for my son to serve in such an honorable cause.


America was in no immediate danger during WWII. We could have signed a peace treaty on Dec 8th recognizing Germany/Japans right to keep the territory they had taken(none of which belonged to us) and been out of the war entirely. Hitler had no way of attacking us, and Japan didn't have the population to hold down the territory they already had, much less an invasion of the US. Hear this clearly, NOBODY WAS GOING TO INVADE THE US DURING WWII. Not Germany, not Japan, and CERTAINLY not Italy. We joined WWII to insure and improve pur place in the world heirarchy. The other guy was getting the upper hand, and it was in our best interest to insure that he didn't succeed. Plain and simple. "Immediate danger". God man, where do you get off making inane statements like that? Did Germany have a bomber capable of reaching the US? A missile? How about Japan? You going to call those balloon bombs of theirs an immediate danger? They were...to Canadian wildlife. EVERY war ever fought has been about resources and power. EVERY one. Abe Lincoln stated REPEATEDLY that he would have left slavery in place if it would keep America together. The Revolution? It was about American expansion and putting the power in our hands rather than Englands. War SUCKS. War is ugly, stupid, evil, and meaningless. War exists because one guy is stupid enough to either start one or make on nessesary, and the other guy isn't smart enough to figure out a way to keep him from doing it. If my son died that would mean he was dead. The only consolation I can imagine would be pride that he joined in the first place and had the stones to put his life on the line. Taking consolation in WHERE he died strikes me as the only thing dumber than war itself.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 07:19 PM
But unlike this war which is based on assumptions and possibilities, WWII presented a clear and present danger. In other words it came out of necessity.
It always hurts to lose something. You can say that about anything. But to lose something for no reason, especially the life of your own child is beyond me. I was never in the military, so maybe we have different points of view, but if my child DIED overseas in a war that we didn't need to start which in the end accomplished nothing (Vietnam) I would be a lot less forgiving than you.


Prove it. We could have been out of the war on December 8..heck, we could have avoided PEarl HArbor all together, just by signing a non-aggression pact with the Axis. Nobody was going to invade us, nobody had the CAPACITY to invade us. Nobody even had the capacity to attack our shores. So back up the statement. What was the clear and present danger to US soil?

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 08:03 PM
America was in no immediate danger during WWII. We could have signed a peace treaty on Dec 8th recognizing Germany/Japans right to keep the territory they had taken(none of which belonged to us) and been out of the war entirely. Hitler had no way of attacking us, and Japan didn't have the population to hold down the territory they already had, much less an invasion of the US. Hear this clearly, NOBODY WAS GOING TO INVADE THE US DURING WWII. Not Germany, not Japan, and CERTAINLY not Italy. We joined WWII to insure and improve pur place in the world heirarchy. The other guy was getting the upper hand, and it was in our best interest to insure that he didn't succeed. Plain and simple. "Immediate danger". God man, where do you get off making inane statements like that? Did Germany have a bomber capable of reaching the US? A missile? How about Japan? You going to call those balloon bombs of theirs an immediate danger? They were...to Canadian wildlife. EVERY war ever fought has been about resources and power. EVERY one. Abe Lincoln stated REPEATEDLY that he would have left slavery in place if it would keep America together. The Revolution? It was about American expansion and putting the power in our hands rather than Englands. War SUCKS. War is ugly, stupid, evil, and meaningless. War exists because one guy is stupid enough to either start one or make on nessesary, and the other guy isn't smart enough to figure out a way to keep him from doing it. If my son died that would mean he was dead. The only consolation I can imagine would be pride that he joined in the first place and had the stones to put his life on the line. Taking consolation in WHERE he died strikes me as the only thing dumber than war itself.

I did not say anyone was going to invade, I said the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an attack on our soil and was an excellent reason for stopping the Japanese from ever doing it again. Iraq on the other hand never struck our soil and we had no reason to make sure they never did anything to Iran or Saudi Arabia again. It's not WHERE they died that's important it's HOW they died that makes all the difference in the world.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 08:09 PM
I did not say anyone was going to invade, I said the bombing of Pearl Harbor was an attack on our soil and was an excellent reason for stopping the Japanese from ever doing it again. Iraq on the other hand never struck our soil and we had no reason to make sure they never did anything to Iran or Saudi Arabia again. It's not WHERE they died that's important it's HOW they died that makes all the difference in the world.


RAMPANT ignorance!!! Pearl Harbor happenned because we forced JApan to attack us or capitulate to us. And again, it was about OIL!!!! We were threatening to shut them off from the oil they needed to expand. You want to stop Japan from doing Pearl HArbor? Don't cut them off from the oil in the first place. You want to keep them from doing it again? Don't threaten them in the Pacific. We did NOT have to fight WWII. We were NOT in immediate danger. That statement was GROSSLY incorrect. We fought WWII to elevate ourselves and maintain our power base. Same EXACT reason for keeping the Arabian penninsula safe. God man STUDY the stuff you talk about. It KILLS me when people misrepresent history. It's like all those people died just so someone 60 years later could completely screw up all the lessons that should have been learned. How's THAT for a meaningless death?

BigFinFan
08-02-2004, 08:40 PM
Didnt Bush say that the Iraqi's could have any form of government?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. "

Oh, wait. He also said Bin Laden was our #1 target in the War on Terror.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

In contrast:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

31 - we have already informed you that your last quote is incorrect. Why do you continue to post this????

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 09:44 PM
RAMPANT ignorance!!! Pearl Harbor happenned because we forced JApan to attack us or capitulate to us. And again, it was about OIL!!!! We were threatening to shut them off from the oil they needed to expand. You want to stop Japan from doing Pearl HArbor? Don't cut them off from the oil in the first place. You want to keep them from doing it again? Don't threaten them in the Pacific. We did NOT have to fight WWII. We were NOT in immediate danger. That statement was GROSSLY incorrect. We fought WWII to elevate ourselves and maintain our power base. Same EXACT reason for keeping the Arabian penninsula safe. God man STUDY the stuff you talk about. It KILLS me when people misrepresent history. It's like all those people died just so someone 60 years later could completely screw up all the lessons that should have been learned. How's THAT for a meaningless death?

PhinPhan if no war is justifiable as you say, why defend the war in Iraq? Why defend any president who takes us to war? Or is it that you just want to turn a blind eye to war because every world leader does it?

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 09:53 PM
31 - we have already informed you that your last quote is incorrect. Why do you continue to post this????


Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

Wow, I didn't know he said that! How can he be serious with the war on terror when the terror networks chief financial contributor is still out there.

DolFan31
08-02-2004, 10:30 PM
It was a paraphrased quote, and I already posted the entire quote many times. Its not like any of you havent done the same.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 11:30 PM
PhinPhan if no war is justifiable as you say, why defend the war in Iraq? Why defend any president who takes us to war? Or is it that you just want to turn a blind eye to war because every world leader does it?


No war is justifiable. But that is the WAGING of war. We did not WAGE war in Iraq. We gave Saddam every opportunity to end the war he started back in '91. We gave him TWELVE years to end the war he started in '91. The current conflict is the ENDING of a war someone else started.

caneproud117
08-02-2004, 11:46 PM
No war is justifiable. But that is the WAGING of war. We did not WAGE war in Iraq. We gave Saddam every opportunity to end the war he started back in '91. We gave him TWELVE years to end the war he started in '91. The current conflict is the ENDING of a war someone else started.

How exactly does one go about ending a "war" where there are no armies and no american soldiers or Iraqis 'soldiers' dying.

PhinPhan1227
08-02-2004, 11:53 PM
How exactly does one go about ending a "war" where there are no armies and no american soldiers or Iraqis 'soldiers' dying.


Iraqi civilians were being slowly strangled to death by sanctions. American pilots were being targeted and fired at on a weekly basis. American pilots were killing Iraqi ground forces. Saddam was funding and training irregular troops(terrorist organizations). War isn't always my tanks facing your tanks across the field of battle.

Karl_12
08-03-2004, 12:24 AM
Iraqi civilians were being slowly strangled to death by sanctions. American pilots were being targeted and fired at on a weekly basis. American pilots were killing Iraqi ground forces. Saddam was funding and training irregular troops(terrorist organizations). War isn't always my tanks facing your tanks across the field of battle.Any proof of this?

Iraq was still rebuilding from the Gulf War, they were less of a threat than North Korea. We needed to finish our job in Afghanistan and capturer or kill Osama before even thinking about Saddam.

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 03:31 AM
Any proof of this?

Iraq was still rebuilding from the Gulf War, they were less of a threat than North Korea. We needed to finish our job in Afghanistan and capturer or kill Osama before even thinking about Saddam.


Proof? These are basic facts. The sanctions against Iraq were starving the IRaqi people. The nation was in a massive depression. Basic services were minimal. American pilots patrolling the No-Fly zone in northern and southern Iraq came under fire regularly from Iraqi Anti Aircraft sites. In reprisal, they shot at and killed those sites. Saddam was giving money to HEzbollah, and rewards to the families of those who martyred themselves. There were also training camps found. Thses are all common facts, if you aren't aware of them, I can't be bothered to find you articles on stuff this mundane. As for Iraq being less of a threat than N Korea, the leader of N Korea hasn't invaded anyone. You can threaten and bluster all you want so long as you do it within your own borders. Saddam invaded TWO of his neighbors within one decade. And Saddam had a massive amount of cash ready to go as soon as the sanctions were lifted. Saddam wasn't a threat tomorrow. Saddam was a threat in 5-10 years. Either way, there was a war in Iraq for the last 12 years and we finally finished it.

ABrownLamp
08-03-2004, 03:53 AM
Prove it. We could have been out of the war on December 8..heck, we could have avoided PEarl HArbor all together, just by signing a non-aggression pact with the Axis. Nobody was going to invade us, nobody had the CAPACITY to invade us. Nobody even had the capacity to attack our shores. So back up the statement. What was the clear and present danger to US soil?
I don't think agreements with Germany worked too well in WWII.

Japan bombed us...for whatever reasons. They attacked us on American soil. Germany is taking over Europe. You don't really think Hitler's plans ended with conquering Europe and Asia do you? They had planes and bombs just like Japan did. And like you said in a previous post, they were usurping man power from countries they had taken control of. It wasn't just a preventative war as Iraq was. This was a true preemptive war.

PhinPhan1227
08-03-2004, 04:36 PM
I don't think agreements with Germany worked too well in WWII.

Japan bombed us...for whatever reasons. They attacked us on American soil. Germany is taking over Europe. You don't really think Hitler's plans ended with conquering Europe and Asia do you? They had planes and bombs just like Japan did. And like you said in a previous post, they were usurping man power from countries they had taken control of. It wasn't just a preventative war as Iraq was. This was a true preemptive war.


"for whatever reasons". That phrase is an homage to ignorance. Hitlers plans? He actually considered America and England kindred nations since they were also Anglo/Arian nations. But that's not important. What IS important is the fact that WWII wasn't a noble cause. It wasn't a wonderful thing. WWII was a tragedy that could have been avoided with a little foresight. Saddam could also have been a tragedy. He won't be because someone had a little foresight.